Point of Law: Pawnbroker is defined in Section 2(7A) to mean a person who carries on business of taking goods and chattels in pawn for a loan.

ORDER :

The practice of money lending, according to historians dates back thousands of years. The roots of the said pursuit is traced to the ancient Mesopotamia, regarded by many as the fount of earliest civilizations of the world. Petitioners who were indulging in this ancient practice, allegedly in accordance with law, suddenly found themselves on its wrong side. Alleging that petitioners are doing their business without authority, their offices were raided and documents seized. In this proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioners question the crime registered against them relating to their business of money lending.

2. Petitioners are partners of one M/s.Aditya Finance engaged in the business of hire purchase. On 04.06.2014, the police conducted a search of their establishment under an investigation named “Operation Kubera” and registered a crime as FIR No.1191/2014 before the Ollur Police Station, Thrissur after seizing 598 documents. Petitioners were indicted as accused, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), apart from Section 18A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the KML Act’) as well as Section 3 r/w Section 9 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 (for short' the Interest Act').

3. The FIR alleged that the accused were conducting their business without any legal authorisation, or permissions and that they were cheating the borrowers, apart from charging exorbitant interest for vehicle loans after collecting blank signed cheques, documents and even stamped papers, thus committing the offences alleged.

4. Petitioners alleged that the F.I.R. is registered without any basis and also that no offence under any law for the time being in force is made out against the petitioners. Petitioners claim that interference is essential to serve the ends of justice which is the paramount consideration of the inherent power of this Court.

5. On 06.07.2015, by a detailed order, all further proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. was stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In the meantime, contrary to the order of stay, a final report was allegedly filed, ignoring the order of stay issued by this Court. Since the final report was filed contrary to the order of stay, the said report cannot be taken into reckoning, and it is eschewed and ignored from consideration.

6. Sri. Pearson S.Fernandez, the learned counsel based his submissions on the invalidity of the FIR by relying upon the provisions of the Act and contended that petitioners had a valid licence as contemplated under the statute and therefore the very edifice on which the FIR was registered is faulty. It was further submitted that the offences under Section 420 IPC as well as those under the Interest Act are not made out as none had a case that petitioners had cheated anyone or were charging exorbitant interest. The learned counsel also contended that the investigation code-named 'Operation Kubera' was an eyewash as against the petitioners, and that they were conducting their business in accordance with law but were harassed and their business destroyed overnight. According to Adv. Pearson, initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners, was due to malafides, and since none of the offences alleged are made out, the FIR itself ought to be quashed.

7. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that the offences alleged are matters which are required to be investigated upon and that quashing of an FIR under S.482 Cr.P.C. ought to be resorted to only very sparingly. It was further submitted that even though the final report was filed without noticing the stay order granted by this Court and the same has no legal validity, nothing prevents the Investigating Officer from continuing with the investigation after disposal of this case. It was also argued that the contentions now raised in this case are matters which ca